Getting arrested for DUI does not mean you will be convicted. Police misconduct, defective breathalyzers and crime lab mistakes may be enough to get your charges lessened or dismissed. Visit our page on Nevada DUI Laws to learn more.

Immigrating to the U.S. is a gauntlet of forms, rules and interviews. But our attorneys are committed to making the process as quick and easy for you as possible. Visit our page on Nevada immigration laws to learn more.

The Nevada crime of false imprisonment occurs when someone restricts someone else's freedom to move without lawful authority. Common examples are not letting a person leave a room, or cornering a person against the wall.

Violating NRS 200.460 can be prosecuted as a gross misdemeanor or a category B felony in Nevada.

1. Definition of false imprisonment in Nevada

Wrongful imprisonment is any illegal deprivation of another person's freedom of movement. An NRS 200.460 violation may occur indoors, outdoors, or in a moving vehicle, and it does not require the use of tools, weapons, or threats. Even using another person as a human shield may qualify as unlawful imprisonment.1

Merely ordering someone not to move is not an NRS 200.460 violation unless it is accompanied by force or threats. Laughlin criminal defense attorney Michael Becker gives an example:

Example: Henry and Jack are having an argument. Henry then gets a phone call and orders Jack, "Don't move while I take this call!" Jack stays still. But Henry did not violate NRS 200.460 because he never threatened or physically constrained Jack. And Jack could have moved if he wanted to -- he just chose not to.

Had Henry in the above example cornered Jack so he could not move or threatened to hurt him if he left, then prosecutors could charge Henry with unlawful imprisonment.2

Note that holding a person for ransom is prosecuted not as an NRS 200.460 violation but rather as the Nevada crime of kidnapping.3 Also, note that law enforcement may legally detain someone if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that person was involved in criminal activity. (Scroll down to section 6 for information on suing police for wrongfully imprisoning them.)

2. Punishments for false imprisonment in Nevada

The punishment for violating NRS 200.460 depends on the circumstances of the case:

Nevada False imprisonment charges

Penalties

Without use of a deadly weapon

Gross misdemeanor:

Up to 364 days in jail, and/or

Up to $2,000 in fines

With use of a deadly weapon

Category B felony:

1 – 6 years in prison

Using the victim as a human shield or to avoid arrest

Category B felony:

1 – 15 years in prison

The defendant is an inmate and did not use a deadly weapon

Category B felony:

1 – 6 years in prison

The defendant is an inmate and did use a deadly weapon

Category B felony:

1 – 20 years in prison

Additionally, the court will order the defendant to pay for all the damages the victim sustained by the alleged wrongful imprisonment.4

3. Fighting Nevada false imprisonment charges

Self-defense is a defense to NRS 200.460 charges.

Various defenses exist that may prove effective in fighting NRS 200.460 charges in Las Vegas or elsewhere in the state. Four common strategies include:

Self-defense

Consent

Shopkeeper's privilege

Parental rights

3.1. Self-defense

Nevada self-defense law permits people to use proportional force in defense of themselves and others if they reasonably believe they are about to sustain immediate bodily harm.5Henderson criminal defense attorney Michael Becker gives an example:

Example: Mark is beating his girlfriend Anna. Anna manages to push him away and locks him in a closet while she calls the police. The police arrive, and Mark lies that he never beat Anna. The police believe Mark and arrest Anna for violating NRS 200.460 for locking Mark in the closet. But if Anna's attorney can show the prosecutor that Mark was lying and Anna was defending herself from a beating, then the charge should be dropped.

If Anna in the above example kept Mark locked in the closet for several hours without calling the police, then Anna might have a tougher time arguing she was acting in self-defense. But because she contacted the authorities right away, she can argue that she locked Mark up for no longer than necessary, and that her actions were proportional to the threat Mark posed.

3.2. Consent

A person is liable for unlawful imprisonment only if the "victim" was confined against his/her will. If the alleged victim agreed to being confined -- even reluctantly -- then the defendant committed no crime. Mesquite criminal defense attorney Neil Shouse provides an illustration:

Example: Katherine and Thomas are a couple who engage in B&D. Thomas then cheats on Katherine, who out of revenge calls the police and claims that Thomas would handcuff her against her will. Thomas gets arrested for violating NRS 200.460. But once Thomas's attorney shows the prosecutor home-video evidence of Katherine consenting to the handcuffing, the prosecutor dismisses the charge.

Helpful evidence to demonstrate consent may include video or audio recordings, written communications (such as text messages or email), and eyewitness testimony.

3.3. Shopkeeper's privilege

Shopkeepers may detain suspected shoplifters.

Merchants may detain suspected thieves for a reasonable time in order to investigate the matter. Even if it turns out that the person being detained was innocent of theft, shopkeepers are not guilty of an NRS 200.460 violation as long as they had reasonable grounds to believe the person stole their property.6

3.4. Parental rights

Parents have the right to discipline their children in ways that restrict their freedom of movement such as "grounding" them or imposing "timeouts." As long as the children don't sustain injuries or undue suffering, a parent confining their children against their will is perfectly legal.

4. Sealing false imprisonment records in Nevada

A gross misdemeanor NRS 200.460 conviction may be sealed from the defendant's record two (2) years after the case closes. But Nevada law is unclear about felony convictions...

Category B felonies like felony false imprisonment usually carry a five (5) year record seal waiting period. However, it is likely that Nevada courts consider felony false imprisonment to be a "crime of violence." This means that the record seal waiting period is bumped up to ten (10) years after the case ends. But to date, there has been no definitive Nevada caselaw that declares whether the waiting period is five (5) or ten (10) years.

Meanwhile, unlawful imprisonment convictions where the victim is a child (under 18) may never be sealed. Finally, NRS 200.460 charges that get dismissed -- meaning there is no conviction -- may be sealed right away. Learn more about sealing criminal records in Nevada.7

5. Deportation for false imprisonment in Nevada

Aliens convicted of violating NRS 200.460 may face deportation.

Courts have indicated that felony false imprisonment may be a deportable offense.8 Therefore, any non-citizens facing wrongful imprisonment allegations should retain an experienced attorney right away to try to get the charges reduced to a non-removable offense or possibly dismissed. Learn more about the criminal defense of immigrants in Nevada.

6. Civil lawsuits for false imprisonment by police in Nevada

Sometimes people get unlawfully detained or arrested. Depending on the case, these victims ("plaintiffs") may be able to file suit against the police ("defendants") for false imprisonment, false arrest, and/or civil rights violations under Section 1983 of the U.S. Code's Title 42:

6.1 Suing police for unlawful detention

Police are legally allowed to detain a person briefly if they have a "reasonable suspicion" the person is involved in criminal activity. "Reasonable suspicion" is a lower standard than "probable cause" -- also called "reasonable cause" -- which is what police need in order to legally arrest a person.

These brief detentions based on reasonable suspicion are called a "Terry stop" or a "stop-and-frisk." During a Terry stop, the officer may pat down the person's outer clothing.9

A consensual encounter between a civilian and a police officer turns into a Terry stop once the civilian is no longer permitted to leave. In Nevada, these Terry stops must last no longer than 60 minutes.10

6.1.1. Civil false imprisonment / illegal detention elements

If a Terry stop is unlawful or excessive, the person who was detained may sue law enforcement for false imprisonment. The plaintiff would need to prove the following five elements:

Victims of an unlawful Terry stop by police may bring a civil lawsuit.

The police acted with the intention to confine the plaintiff within boundaries that are fixed by the police;

The confinement is against the will of the plaintiff in such a manner as to violate the plaintiff's right to be free from restraint of movement;

The police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain the plaintiff;

The defendant is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by the confinement; and

The police caused the confinement and the plaintiff's injuries.11

The plaintiff has the burden to prove false imprisonment "by a preponderance of the evidence." In other words, that it is more likely than not that the defendant committed false imprisonment. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits often rely on eyewitnesses and police surveillance video as evidence that the police detained the plaintiff unlawfully.

Plaintiffs typically have two (2) years after the false imprisonment to bring a lawsuit.12

6.1.2 Defendants in false imprisonment lawsuits

Victims of unlawful detention by police can bring civil lawsuits against law enforcement, including:

the police officer(s) or deputy sheriff(s) who conducted the detention or arrest,

the police chief or sheriff,

the police agency or sheriff department, and/or

possibly the city of county

Predictably, the police agency would have deeper pockets than the individual officer who falsely detained the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiffs are always encouraged to file suit against the agency that employed the officer.

In addition, the police may try to claim "qualified immunity" by arguing that they acted in good faith.13

6.2 Suing police for false arrest

Probable cause is required for a lawful arrest.

Nevada police are legally allowed to place people under arrest in the following two circumstances:

the police secured a current and valid arrest warrant based on probable cause that the suspect committed a crime,

the police do not have a warrant, but they have probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a crime

Police commit a false arrest if they apprehend someone against the person's consent and without a valid warrant or without probable cause.

6.2.1. False arrest elements

If a person gets wrongly arrested, the person can sue law enforcement for the civil torts of false imprisonment (discussed in the previous section) as well as false arrest. The four elements of a false arrest claim include:

The police took the plaintiff into custody;

The police lacked probable cause to place the plaintiff under arrest;

The custody was against the plaintiff's will; and

A reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would not have felt free to leave14

The plaintiff has the burden to prove false arrest "by a preponderance of the evidence." In other words, that it is more likely than not that the defendant committed false arrest.

Helpful evidence in these cases include eyewitnesses, surveillance video, and bodycam footage showing the police physically taking the plaintiff into custody and reading Miranda rights.

Plaintiffs typically have a statute of limitations of two (2) years after the false arrest to bring a lawsuit.15

6.2.2 Defendants in false arrest lawsuits

False arrest victims can try to sue all levels of law enforcement, including:

the police officer(s) or deputy sheriff(s) who conducted the arrest,

the police chief or sheriff,

the police agency or sheriff department, and/or

possibly the city of county

Obviously, police officers usually have fewer cash reserves than the police agency they work for. Therefore, plaintiffs are advised to go after the police department in addition to the individual officer(s) that carried out the false arrest.

6.2.3 Damages in Nevada false arrest lawsuits

False arrest plaintiffs may be able to recover compensatory damages for their:

medical bills,

pain and suffering,

lost wages, and/or

loss of future earnings,

The court may even order that the defendant(s) pay punitive damages if their actions were somehow egregious.

6.2.4 Defenses to false arrest lawsuits

Depending on the circumstances of the case, the defendant(s) might try to defend themselves against false arrest claims by arguing that:

there was no arrest because a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would have felt free to leave,

the arrest was legal because the police had probable cause, and/or

the arrest warrant (if there was one) was current and valid16

In addition, the police may try to claim "qualified immunity" by arguing that they acted in good faith.

6.3 Suing police for Section 1983 violations

Police may be liable for violating civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Section 1983 of the U.S. Code's Title 42 gives people who have had their civil rights violated by police legal recourse to sue. It is a broader law than the civil torts claims of false imprisonment and false arrest because it comprises all potential civil rights abuses by police.

6.3.1. Section 1983 elements

An unlawful detainment or arrest is a civil rights violation. Therefore, victims of an unlawful detainment or false arrest can bring a Section 1983 lawsuit. The two elements of a Section 1983 cause of action are:

The police acted under "color of law"

The police violated the plaintiff's civil rights17

"Under color of law" means that the defendant is acting with the apparent authority of the state, such as law enforcement. And one of the civil rights that Section 1983 is meant to safeguard is the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; this includes unlawful detentions and arrests.

Plaintiffs have the burden to prove Section 1983 violations "by a preponderance of the evidence." In other words, that it is more likely than not that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' civil rights. Common evidence in these types of lawsuits include eyewitnesses and video taken by police or passersby.

Plaintiffs typically have two (2) years after the false arrest or unlawful detention to bring a Section 1983 lawsuit.18

6.3.2 Defendants in Section 1983 lawsuits

Victims of Section 1983 violations by police can bring civil lawsuits against law enforcement, including:

the police officer(s) or deputy sheriff(s) who conducted the detention or arrest,

the police chief or sheriff,

the police agency or sheriff department, and/or

possibly the city of county

As discussed above, police departments are more likely to be able to pay out large damages than individual officers can.

6.3.3 Damages in Section 1983 lawsuits

Plaintiffs may be able to win compensatory damages to cover their :

medical bills,

pain and suffering,

lost wages, and/or

loss of future earnings,

Depending on the egregiousness of the police's actions, the court may order that the defendants pay out punitive damages as well.

Finally, plaintiffs who in a Section 1983 lawsuit may be able to recover their attorneys' fees as well.19

6.3.4 Defenses to 1983 lawsuits

Depending on the facts of the case, defendants may try to defend themselves against Section 1983 claims by arguing that:

the plaintiff's civil rights were not violated,

the police did not act under color of law, and/or

the police have "qualified immunity" from prosecution because they acted in good faith

Plaintiffs in Section 1983 cases usually have the initial burden to show that the defendants' behavior clearly violated established statutory or constitutional rights. Police officers cannot rely on their "qualified immunity" to protect them from liability if their behavior was unreasonable or not in good faith.20

Call a Nevada attorney...

If you have been accused of false imprisonment under NRS 200.460, phone 702-DEFENSE (702-333-3673). Our Las Vegas criminal defense lawyers are happy to talk for free about whether we may be able to get your case reduced to lesser charges or even dismissed outright. And if it comes to it, we are also ready to fight for your innocence at trial.

Or if you have been the victim of an unlawful arrest or detention by police, phone our Las Vegas personal attorneys at 702-DEFENSE (702-333-3673). We may be able to obtain a substantial settlement or, if necessary, go to trial in pursuit of the largest financial rewards possible.

Legal References:

1. False imprisonment is an unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another, and consists in confinement or detention without sufficient legal authority.

2. A person convicted of false imprisonment shall pay all damages sustained by the person so imprisoned, and, except as otherwise provided in this section, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

3. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to subsection 4, if the false imprisonment is committed:

(a) By a prisoner in a penal institution without a deadly weapon; or

(b) By any other person with the use of a deadly weapon,

--> the person convicted of such a false imprisonment is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years.

4. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to subsection 5, if the false imprisonment is committed by using the person so imprisoned as a shield or to avoid arrest, the person convicted of such a false imprisonment is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 15 years.

5. If the false imprisonment is committed by a prisoner who is in lawful custody or confinement with the use of a deadly weapon, the person convicted of such a false imprisonment is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years.

Lerner Shops v. Marin, 83 Nev. 75 (1967) ("False imprisonment is a restraint of one's liberty without any sufficient cause therefor...As defined in NRS 200.460 false imprisonment (as a crime) is an unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another, and consists in confinement or detention without sufficient legal authority. It is generally acknowledged that submission to the mere verbal direction of another, unaccompanied by force or threats of any character, does not constitute false imprisonment.").

NRS 200.310.

NRS 200.460.

NRS 200.275.

NRS 597.850; Jacobson v. State, 89 Nev. 197 (1973)("If one has reasonable grounds to believe that another is stealing his property he may be justified in detaining such person for a reasonable time in order to investigate. Lerner Shops v. Marin, 83 Nev. 75, 78, 423 P.2d 398 (1967). This common law privilege, if properly exercised, is a defense to an action for false imprisonment.").

NRS 179.245; NRS 179.255; NRS 200.408.

United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez, 431 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2005).

NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.

1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the conditions of the person's parole or probation.

3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain the person's identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the person's presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself or herself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is arrested.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968) ("And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.")

Nevada Jury Instruction 6IT.4: False Imprisonment

In order to sustain a claim of false imprisonment, plaintiff must prove:

1. Defendant intended to confine the plaintiff within boundaries fixed by the defendant;

2. The defendant's act directly or indirectly resulted in the confinement of the plaintiff; and

3. The plaintiff was conscious of the confinement or harmed by it. False imprisonment arising from a false arrest occurs when the claimant's liberty is restrained under the probable imminence of force without any legal cause or justification.

NRS 171.123; United States v. Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).

Fleeger v. Bell, 95 F. Supp. 2d 1126 (Nev. 2000)("In Nevada, a false imprisonment is effected where there is a "confinement or detention [of another] without sufficient legal authority." Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.460. An integral part of the proof of this tort is the commission or instigation of a false arrest (i.e., an unlawful arrest or restraint of personal liberty). See Garton v. City of Reno, 102 Nev. 313, 720 P.2d 1227, 1228 (Nev. 1986) (quotation and citation omitted). As mentioned, supra, Fleeger's arrest and detention in Texas for the nonpayment of casino markers lay within the legal bounds of Nevada's bad check statute. The Court will therefore dismiss Fleeger's second cause of action insofar as it relates to Desert Palace."); Jordan v. State ex rel. Dept. of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 110 P.3d 30 (2005); Nelson v. City of Las Vegas, 99 Nev. 548, 665 P.2d 1141 (1983); County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 111 S. Ct. 1661 (1991).

NRS 11.190.

See, e.g., Jordan v. State ex rel. DMV & Pub. Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 71 (2005)("We note that, to the extent that the State asserts immunity under NRS 41.032, there exist unresolved questions as to whether Officer Jones' acts were made in bad faith and, accordingly, whether the State is entitled to immunity.").

NRS 171.1231. Arrest if probable cause appears.

At any time after the onset of the detention pursuant to NRS 171.123, the person so detained shall be arrested if probable cause for an arrest appears. If, after inquiry into the circumstances which prompted the detention, no probable cause for arrest appears, such person shall be released.

1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3 and NRS 33.070 and 33.320, a peace officer or an officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration designated by the Attorney General of the United States for that purpose may make an arrest in obedience to a warrant delivered to him or her, or may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) For a public offense committed or attempted in the officer's presence.

(b) When a person arrested has committed a felony or gross misdemeanor, although not in the officer's presence.

(c) When a felony or gross misdemeanor has in fact been committed, and the officer has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

(d) On a charge made, upon a reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony or gross misdemeanor by the person arrested.

(e) When a warrant has in fact been issued in this State for the arrest of a named or described person for a public offense, and the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested is the person so named or described.

2. A peace officer or an officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration designated by the Attorney General of the United States for that purpose may also, at night, without a warrant, arrest any person whom the officer has reasonable cause for believing to have committed a felony or gross misdemeanor, and is justified in making the arrest, though it afterward appears that a felony or gross misdemeanor has not been committed.

3. An officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration may only make an arrest pursuant to subsections 1 and 2 for a violation of chapter 453 of NRS.

Marschall v. Carson, 86 Nev. 107 (1970)("To establish false imprisonment of which false arrest is an integral part, it is only necessary to prove that the person be restrained of his liberty under the probable imminence of force without any legal cause or justification therefore.").

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) ("There is, however, a refinement to be considered, arising from the common law's distinctive treatment of the torts of false arrest and false imprisonment, "[t]he ... cause[s] of action [that] provid[e] the closest analogy to claims of the type considered here," Heck, supra, at 484, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383. See 1 D. Dobbs, Law of Torts § 47, p 88 (2001). False arrest and false imprisonment overlap; the former is a species of the latter. "Every confinement of the person is an imprisonment, whether it be in a common prison or in a private house, or in the stocks, or even by forcibly detaining one in the public streets; and when a man is lawfully in a house, it is imprisonment to prevent him from leaving the room in which he is." M. Newell, Law of Malicious Prosecution, False Imprisonment, and Abuse of Legal Process § 2, p 57 (1892) (footnote omitted). See also 7 S. Speiser, C. Krause, & A. Gans, American Law of Torts § 27:2, pp 940-942 (1990). We shall thus refer to the two torts together as false imprisonment. That tort provides the proper analogy to the cause of action asserted against the present respondents for the following reason: The sort of unlawful detention remediable by the tort of false imprisonment is detention without legal process, see, e.g., W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 11, p 54, § 119, pp 885-886 (5th ed. 1984); 7 Speiser, supra, § 27:2, at 943-944, and the allegations before us arise from respondents' detention of petitioner without legal process in January 1994. They did not have a warrant for his arrest.").

NRS 11.190.

Nelson v. Las Vegas, 99 Nev. 548, 551 (1983)("A police officer is not liable for false arrest or imprisonment when he acts pursuant to a warrant that is valid on its face. The facially valid warrant provides the legal cause or justification for the arrest, in the same way that an arrest made with probable cause is privileged and not actionable.").

Get Quick Legal Help

Please stand by. A member of our staff usually responds within a few minutes

Please complete all required fields below.

If you are a human, ignore this field

Name *

Phone *

Email *

City where case is located *

Tell us what happened *

Contact Our Firm

Most responses within 5 minutes.

Thank you for contacting us. We will get back to you shortly.

Please complete all required fields below.

If you are a human, ignore this field

Name *

Phone *

Email

City where case is located *

Tell us what happened *

Featured on:

Featured on:

Free attorney consultations...

Our attorneys want to hear your side of the story. Contact us 24/7 to schedule a FREE consultation with a criminal defense lawyer. We may be able to get your charges reduced or even dismissed altogether. And if necessary, we will champion your case all the way to trial.

Regain peace of mind...

Shouse Law Defense Group has multiple locations throughout California. Click Office Locations to find out which office is right for you.

Shouse Law Group has multiple locations all across California, Nevada, and Colorado. Click Office Locations to find out which office is right for you.

Las Vegas Defense Group

5My experience with Las Vegas Defense Group was great. The staff was very friendly and kept me informed throughout the process and made it as easy for me as possible. The outcome I was promised was the outcome I got.John D.